ln the state of Oregon, if you are in a wreck and the accident was not your fault you are entitled to file a claim for Diminished Value.
The following cases are pertinent to the State of Oregon and Diminished Value:
Jose Gonzales v. Farmers lnsurance Company of Oregon, et al., (TC 9910-174791(CA 4128598) (sc s0s4486)
ln Jose Gonzales v. Farmers lnsurance Company of Oregon the Oregon Supreme Court rules that insurance consumers can collect for diminished value under their own policy unless it is specifically excluded. Here is an excerpt from that ruling:
On review from the Court of Appeals in an appeal from the Multnomah County Circuit Court, Frank L. Bearden, Judge. 2LOOr App 54, 150 P3d 20 (2005). The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. Opinion of the Court by Justice Robert D. Durham.
Today, the Oregon Supreme Court interpreted a collision insurance policy and concluded that that particular policy’s use of the term “repair” obligated the insurer to restore a damaged insured vehicle to its condition prior to the collision, or to compensate the insured for any reduction of the vehicle’s value resulting from the collision.
Defendants Farmers lnsurance Company of Oregon, Farmers lnsurance Exchange, Farmers Group, lnc., and Mid-Century lnsurance Company issued an automobile insurance policy to plaintiff Jose Gonzales. Plaintitf’s vehicle suffered damage in an accident, and defendants paid for repairs, but the repairs did not restore the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants to recover compensation for the diminished value of his vehicle.
Defendants acknowledged that the policy obligated them to “repair or replace” the vehicle, but argued that the term “repair” did not incorporate a duty to pay for a ioss in value. The trial court agreed, and granted summary judgment to defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that, under the terms of the policy, defendants were obligated to compensate plaintiff for his vehicle’s diminution in value due to the accident.
Dunmire Motor Company v. Oregon Mutual Fire lnsurance Company, 166 Ore 690 (1941)
In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the insured was entitled to the difference between the pre and post-loss value of the vehicle and the proper repair of the car may not accomplish this result.
Millers Mutual Fire lnsurance Co. v. Wildish Construction Co.,306 Or. 1O2,758 P.2d 836 (Or. 07/06/7988)
In this ruling, the court found that with regard to real property, the cost of repair is a more accurate measure of damages than diminution of value.